OUNZ vs. ACWV
OUNZ (VanEck Merk Gold ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - OUNZ is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt), while ACWV is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI Minimum Volatility Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, OUNZ returned 11.37%/yr vs 6.94%/yr for ACWV. At a 0.16 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. OUNZ charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.
Performance
OUNZ vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, OUNZ achieves a -7.16% return, which is significantly lower than ACWV's 3.37% return. Over the past 10 years, OUNZ has outperformed ACWV with an annualized return of 11.37%, while ACWV has yielded a comparatively lower 6.94% annualized return.
OUNZ
- 1D
- -0.23%
- 1M
- -5.03%
- 6M
- -12.66%
- YTD
- -7.16%
- 1Y
- 19.37%
- 3Y*
- 26.53%
- 5Y*
- 17.02%
- 10Y*
- 11.37%
- ALL TIME*
- 9.39%
ACWV
- 1D
- -0.03%
- 1M
- 2.00%
- 6M
- 2.51%
- YTD
- 3.37%
- 1Y
- 5.99%
- 3Y*
- 9.33%
- 5Y*
- 5.45%
- 10Y*
- 6.94%
- ALL TIME*
- 8.60%
OUNZ vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OUNZ VanEck Merk Gold ETF | -7.16% | 63.95% | 26.75% | 12.83% | -0.51% | -4.00% | 24.71% | 18.00% | -2.06% | 12.82% |
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF | 3.37% | 11.04% | 11.38% | 8.23% | -10.36% | 13.97% | 3.04% | 21.04% | -1.42% | 18.57% |
Correlation
The correlation between OUNZ and ACWV is 0.25, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.25 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.24 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.23 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.20 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 16, 2014 | 0.16 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
OUNZ vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank
OUNZ
ACWV
OUNZ vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Merk Gold ETF (OUNZ) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| OUNZ | ACWV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.05 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.08 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.15 | 1.14 | +0.01 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.74 | 0.94 | -0.20 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.73 | 2.68 | -0.95 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
OUNZ vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum OUNZ drawdown since its inception was -26.31%, smaller than the maximum ACWV drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for OUNZ and ACWV.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| OUNZ | ACWV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -26.31% | -28.82% | +2.51% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -26.31% | -6.37% | -19.94% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -26.31% | -7.56% | -18.75% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -26.31% | -18.14% | -8.17% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -26.31% | -28.82% | +2.51% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -25.79% | -1.96% | -23.83% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.73% | -3.11% | -4.62% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 11.23% | 2.24% | +8.99% |
Volatility
OUNZ vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison
VanEck Merk Gold ETF (OUNZ) has a higher volatility of 6.41% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 2.99%. This indicates that OUNZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| OUNZ | ACWV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.41% | 2.99% | +3.42% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 23.99% | 6.26% | +17.73% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 27.86% | 8.03% | +19.83% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.33% | 10.28% | +8.05% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.12% | 12.29% | +3.83% |
OUNZ vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison
OUNZ has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
OUNZ vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison
OUNZ has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ACWV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.94%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF | 1.94% | 2.09% | 2.33% | 2.41% | 2.18% | 1.92% | 1.77% | 2.54% | 2.32% | 2.04% | 2.56% | 2.28% |
OUNZ VanEck Merk Gold ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
OUNZ and ACWV have a correlation of 0.25, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
OUNZ has higher volatility (6.41%) compared to ACWV (2.99%). In terms of maximum drawdown, OUNZ dropped -26.31% vs ACWV's -28.82%.
On 10-year performance, OUNZ leads with 11.37% vs 6.94% for ACWV. On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, ACWV has been the lower-risk option at 2.99%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, OUNZ has performed better with a 11.37% return vs 6.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for OUNZ.
ACWV has the higher dividend yield at 1.94%, compared with 0.00% for OUNZ.
OUNZ is categorized as Gold, while ACWV is Global Equities. OUNZ tracks LBMA Gold Price PM ($/ozt), while ACWV tracks MSCI ACWI Minimum Volatility Index. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for OUNZ and 0.20% for ACWV.
ACWV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.75 vs 0.70), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for OUNZ and ACWV
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer